My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/12/71
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1971
>
PC 10/12/71
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:40:41 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:37:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/12/1971
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/12/71
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
,q1- Oy <br />~~sAN CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ ~•~ • ~ • • <br />4~ <br />`~~~° Planning Commission <br />~xrso ~ <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />OOfie : October 12, 1971 <br />Time : 8:00 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton .Justice Court <br />Robert Myers was present and outlined <br />the agency requirements for the bene- <br />fit of the Commission. He stated tha <br />they now have the Alameda County <br />Comprehensive Health Planning endorse <br />ment, and next they will have to come <br />for Design Review, but also have to <br />submit plans to the State Health <br />Department and to the FHA for final <br />approval before they can award a <br />contract. He stated further that <br />they are trying to get working <br />drawings by the first week in Novembe <br />He felt that they should be ready to <br />start building in January or <br />February. <br />TENTATIVE SUB- <br />DIVISION MAPS <br />Tent. Tract 3336 <br />Continued until <br />Dct. Z16, 1971 <br />Commissioner Hirst entered a reso- <br />lution that UP-71-23 be extended for <br />60-days from today. This was seconder <br />and carried. <br />leasanton Meadows, 13 single-family <br />ownhouse Units, Fairlands Drive. <br />hairman Carrigan described the <br />roperty and felt that this whole <br />roperty should be developed as one <br />iece. <br />:r. Castro commented that the de- <br />elopment has been approved and there <br />s no legal way the City can force th <br />roperty owner to develop the rest. <br />e further said that there is no way <br />hat they could deny the subdivision. <br />ommissioner Pereira objected to this <br />roject as now it is designated as <br />Ingle-family ownership and he furthe <br />tated that the Homeowner's Associati <br />ees would be excessive to maintain <br />he recreation facilities with only <br />3 residents . <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.